ARUBA NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. Court---------------------------------------------------------Aruba Networks, Inc. faces a shareholder lawsuit filed in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On May 23, 2013, a purported stockholder class action lawsuitcaptioned Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed inthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia against the Company and certain of its officers. Thepurported class action alleges claims for violations of thefederal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatorydamages and other relief. The Company believes that it hasmeritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend thelitigation vigorously. Based on information currently available,the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss orrange of possible loss is not reasonably estimable.

It was the final ruling issued by the Commercial Division judgebefore her appointment to the Appellate Division, First Departmentbecame effective on Feb. 3.

In a 54-page ruling, Justice Kapnick said the settlement --reached in June 2011 with 22 investors after a year of discussiononly to be challenged by a small contingent of investors led byinsurance behemoth AIG for allegedly falling short of coveringactual losses -- was made in good faith and within the bounds ofreasonableness.

The judge held that Bank of New York Mellon, as the trustee forthese certificate holders, "did not abuse its discretion inentering into the settlement agreement and did not act in badfaith or outside the bounds of reasonable judgment."

Justice Kapnick, who presided over a nine-week evidentiary hearingin 2013 during an Article 77 proceeding initiated to approve thesettlement, noted it was "clear" that BNYM placed "considerableweight" on the fact that the settlement had the backing of 22institutional investors, including BlackRock, MetLife, Pa-cificInvestment Management Company and the Federal Home Loan MortgageCorporation.

The much-anticipated decision from the trial court on Jan. 31 wasregarded as an opportunity to establish some precedent-settinggroundwork as to what extent trustees have a duty in protectingthe interests of investors of such securities.

Justice Kapnick did reject one piece of the settlement in holdingthat the trustee had not acted in good faith in settling loanmodification claims, which involves the repurchase of up to $31billion worth of modified loans that are separate from the $8.5billion figure.

"It is clear that the Trustee was aware of the issue and didinclude it in a list of settlement issues to discuss with Bank ofAmerica," Justice Kapnick wrote, adding that BNYM could haveretained an expert to "opine on the contract interpretation of thevarious provisions of the PSAs that address the repurchase ofmodified loans."

Justice Kapnick stayed an entry of her judgment until Feb. 7.

"We are pleased that the Court refused to approve the proposedsettlement in its entirety and found that the trustee actedunreasonably in agreeing to compromise billions of dollars ofinvestor claims," AIG said in a statement. "We respectfullydisagree with the other aspects of the Court's ruling, which arenot supported by the record and which set a dangerous precedentthat could eliminate important protections for investors."

Mark Zauderer -- mzauderer@fzwz.com -- partner at Flemming ZulackWilliamson Zauderer who is among counsel representing AIG, saidthe case "will continue for years to come both at the trial andappellate levels."

AIG and other investors who opposed the settlement -- a list whichat one point included four dozen entities but has sincesignificantly narrowed -- argued in court briefs that thediscussion talks among investors, Bank of America and BNYMamounted to "a secret low-ball settlement" without the trustee"investigating or valuing any of the claims."

Objectors furthermore argued that fairness in settlement wasstymied due to the conflict of interest created by Mayer Brown'srepresentation of BNYM when it had counted among its clients Bankof America plus several of the institutional investors.

A waiver at the outset provided that should settlementnegotiations fail, Mayer Brown would not bring action against Bankof America on behalf of BNYM.

AIG also argued there was no loan file review conducted prior tosettlement and that investors' losses are projected at $100billion.

Justice Kapnick's opinion notes that amidst negotiations,conducted over the course of a year via face to face meetings,conference calls and "thousands of email exchanges," thenegotiated figure ranged from $1.5 billion on Bank of America'send to $16 billion by the institutional investors.

In a statement, BNYM said it was "extremely pleased that the courthas vindicated the trustee's actions by overwhelmingly approvingthe settlement." Matthew Ingber -- mingber@mayerbrown.com -- apartner at Mayer Brown, declined to comment on the ruling.

AIG said it plans to file post-trial motions challenging aspectsof the court's ruling and to determine how losses per trust wouldbe assessed along with the method of allocating the settlementamount among the trusts.

Were any issues to head to the First Department on appeal,Justice Kapnick is automatically recused from serving on thepresiding panel, said Office of Court Administration spokesmanDavid Bookstaver.

The settlement is not consummated until all appeals are exhausted.

BARNES & NOBLE: "Nguyen" Suit Over HP TouchPad Tablets Stayed-------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court for the State of California granted the motionof Barnes & Noble, Inc. to stay a case filed by Kevin Khoa Nguyenand the action has been stayed pending resolution of the Company'sappeal from the court's denial of its motion to compelarbitration, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended Oct. 26, 2013.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court forthe State of California against the Company. The complaint isstyled as a nationwide class action and includes a Californiastate-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders forHP TouchPad Tablets placed on Barnes & Noble's website in August2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices andfalse advertising under both New York and California state law,violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performanceof the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at aspecified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but doesnot specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial responseto the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff toarbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to acontractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012.

The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, andthe Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals. The Company filed its opening brief on the appeal onFebruary 11, 2013. The answering brief was filed on April 13,2013, and the Company's reply brief was filed on May 23, 2013. TheCompany has also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved totransfer the action to New York. The court granted the Company'smotion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action has beenstayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court'sdenial of its motion to compel arbitration.

BARNES & NOBLE: Files New Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a second motion to dismiss a suit filedin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois over the tampering of PIN pads in certain of its stores,according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.26, 2013.

Barnes & Noble had discovered that PIN pads in certain of itsstores had been tampered to allow criminal access to card data andPIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through theterminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class actioncomplaints (three in federal district court in the NorthernDistrict of Illinois and one in the Northern District ofCalifornia), each of which alleged on behalf of national and otherclasses of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes &Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breachof contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claimssuch as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state databreach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptivepractices statutes. The actions sought various forms of reliefincluding damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple orpunitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All fourcases were transferred and/or assigned to a single Judge in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amendedcomplaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Courtgranted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffsthen filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a secondmotion to dismiss. That motion is pending, and a decision is notexpected from the Court until January 29, 2014 or later. It ispossible that additional litigation arising out of this matter maybe commenced on behalf of customers, banks or other card issuers,payment card companies or stockholders seeking damages allegedlyarising out of this incident and other related relief.

The Company also has received inquiries related to this matterfrom the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneysgeneral, all of which have either been closed or have not had anyrecent activity. The Company intends to cooperate with them iffurther activity arises. In addition, payment card companies andassociations may impose fines by reason of the tampering andfederal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties orother remedies against the Company.

BARNES & NOBLE: "Torrez" Suit Over Zip Code Request Now Dismissed-----------------------------------------------------------------The suit Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of himself andall others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. has beendismissed, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended Oct. 26, 2013.

On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Courtfor the State of California against the Company. The complaint wasstyled as a California state-wide class action. It allegedviolations of California Civil Code section 1747.08 (the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the Company's allegedimproper requesting and recording of zip codes from Californiacustomers who used credit cards as payment. The complaint was re-filed in the Superior Court for the State of California onDecember 23, 2011 as a separate action. The Summons and Complainthave not been served on the Company for either action. On February10, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request that the action filed inDecember be dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was entered inMarch 2012.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filedagainst Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.in the Superior Court for the State of California making thefollowing allegations against defendants with respect to salariedStore Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State ofCalifornia from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1)failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missedmeal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failureto pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement forbusiness expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wagestatements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegationthat these salaried managers were improperly classified as exemptfrom California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains noallegations concerning the number of any such alleged violationsor the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. Theparties have completed pre-certification discovery. On October 18,2013, the court changed the previously ordered certificationmotion schedule. The current schedule is as follows: Plaintiff'smotion for class certification was due November 11, 2013, Barnes &Noble's opposition is due January 13, 2013, and plaintiff's replyis due February 25, 2014. The hearing date for the certificationmotion is March 21, 2014. No trial date has been set.

BARNES & NOBLE: Seeks Summary Judgment in "Trimmer" FLSA Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a summary judgment motion in a suitfiled by a former Assistant Store Manager (ASM) in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York,according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.26, 2013.

On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former AssistantStore Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkalleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and NewYork Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he andother similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exemptfrom overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010,when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. Thecomplaint seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSAcomprised of ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25,2010 until July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLLcomprised of ASMs employed in New York from January 25, 2007 untilJuly 1, 2010. The parties have completed the first phase ofdiscovery with respect to the individual claims asserted byTrimmer and one opt-in plaintiff only. The Court has stayed allclass-wide discovery at this point. The Company filed a summaryjudgment motion on November 25, 2013.

The litigation involves Biomet's metal-on-metal hip replacementdevice known as M2a Magnum. Hundreds of plaintiffs claimed invarious courts across the country that the hip device led toinjuries.

The lawsuits were combined and jointly heard at the federal courtof Indiana, the state where Biomet is headquartered. The multi-district litigation began in 2012.

As part of the settlement, Biomet will deposit $50 million into anescrow account and another $6 million into an attorney fee fund,the filing showed. The agreement with the plaintiffs shall extendto all pending cases, and any future lawsuit filed in a federalcourt on or before April 15, 2014.

Plaintiffs who have received a Biomet M2a 38 or M2a Magnum hipreplacement system as part of an initial hip replacement that wasrectified more than 180 days after it was implanted shall receivea base award of $200,000.

Biomet, however, maintains that the injuries, losses and damageswere not due to its hip implants.

"Plaintiffs and Biomet are mindful of the uncertainties engenderedby litigation and are desirous of settling and compromising theirdifferences by entering into this settlement agreement," JudgeRobert Miller wrote in his order.

Biomet said in a statement late on Feb. 3 that it is pleased toreach a settlement and resolve the lawsuits.

The glass carafe can fall out of the metal frame and plastic baseof the coffee press and break or shatter, posing laceration andburn hazards to consumers.

Bodum has received about 14 reports of the glass carafes breakingor shattering when the coffee press' plastic base separated fromthe metal frame. There have been four reports of minor injuries,including two lacerations and two burns.

The recall involves Bodum rose gold Chambord locking lid 8-cupglass coffee presses. The coffee press' glass carafe, screen andplunger are held in place by a metal frame which is rose gold-colored with a black molded plastic base. Consumers put groundcoffee and hot water in the glass carafe and push the plunger andscreen down through the water to brew coffee. The coffee pressesare 10 inches high by about 4 inches in diameter. The coffeepress has a locking lid. Bodum is printed on the glass carafe.Bodum and SKU number 11029732 are printed on a white label on thebottom of the base. Bodum and Made in Portugal are embossed onthe bottom of the black plastic base.

The recalled products were manufactured in Portugal and soldexclusively at Starbucks nationwide and online at starbucks.comfrom November 2013 through December 2013 for about $40.

Consumers should stop using the recalled coffee pressesimmediately and return them to the Starbucks store where purchasedor contact Bodum for a full refund. Consumers who purchased thecoffee presses online should contact Bodum for a pre-paid returnlabel to return the coffee presses to receive a full refund.

BP WEST: Consumers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Debit Card Fee Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Laura Gunderson, writing for The Oregonian, reports that aMultnomah County jury sided with consumers on Jan. 31 in a class-action lawsuit accusing BP West Coast Products of wrongly charging35 cents extra to Oregon consumers who paid for gas with a debitcard at Arco stations and AmPm minimarkets.

And although the company plans to appeal the decision, a BPspokesman said, the company will no longer charge the 35-cent feeas it reviews "options and alternatives."

Steven Scharfstein, a Lake Oswego lawyer, was the named plaintiffin the case, which was originally filed in December, 2011, andsought to create a class out of Oregon customers who'd paid thefees at any of about 50 stations. The case, which alleged that BPdidn't follow Oregon laws in alerting customers of the charge, wasbrought by Portland lawyer David Sugerman.

The award allows consumers who bought gas between Jan. 1, 2011,and Aug. 31, 2013, to recover $200 for the violations of thestate's Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act."We are disappointed with the verdict and we intend to appeal,"said Scott Dean, a BP spokesman. "Although BPWCP continues tobelieve that the debit card fee is a reasonable method to coverbank transaction fees and is not part of the price of gasoline orgoods offered at ARCO retail locations, we are suspending chargingthe debit card fee in Oregon while we review our options andalternatives."

Mr. Sugerman could not comment on the case, which was set to moveinto a new phase on Feb. 3. However, a release from Sugerman'soffice said "case evidence showed that there are likely close to2.9 million victims in the class."

BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 224,800 Strollers Due to Amputation Hazard----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withBritax Child Safety Inc., of Fort Mill, S.C., announced avoluntary recall of about 216,000 in the United States and 8,800in Canada B-Agile, B-Agile Double and BOB Motion stroller.Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwiseinstructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell arecalled consumer product.

The hinge on the stroller's folding mechanism can partiallyamputate consumers' fingertips, break their fingers or causesevere lacerations, among other injuries, when they press therelease button while pulling on the release strap.

The recall involves Britax B-Agile, B-Agile Double and BOB Motionstrollers. The single and double strollers were sold in variouscolor schemes, including black, red, kiwi, sandstone, navy andorange. They were manufactured between March 2011 and June 2013and have the following model numbers: U341763, U341764, U341782and U341783 for the B-Agile strollers; U361818 or U361819 for theB-Agile Double strollers; and U391820, U391821 and U391822 for theBOB Motion strollers. The model number and the manufacture datein YYYY/MM/DD format can be found on label located on the insideof the stroller's metal frame near the right rear wheel.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at majorretailers and juvenile products stores nationwide, and online atAmazon.com, albeebaby.com, buybuybaby.com, diapers.com,ToysRUs.com and other online retailers from May 2011 through June2013 for between $250 and $450.

Consumers should stop using the recalled strollers immediately andcontact Britax to receive a free repair kit.

Care Bakery is recalling Care brand bread products from themarketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on thelabel. People with an allergy to milk should not consume therecalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in Alberta and BritishColumbia.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalledproducts as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the recall of an ingredient containingundeclared milk. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) isconducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to therecall of other products. If other high-risk products arerecalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated FoodRecall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productsfrom the marketplace.

The food recall warning issued on Jan. 29, 2014 has been updatedto correct some product information. This additional informationwas identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)food safety investigation.

Care Bakery is recalling Care Bakery brand bread products from themarketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on thelabel. People with an allergy to milk should not consume therecalled products described below.

These products have been sold in Alberta and British Columbia.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalledproducts as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the recall of an ingredient containingundeclared milk. The CFIA is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productsfrom the marketplace.

CONSTELLIUM NV: Discovery in Suit by Retirees to End January------------------------------------------------------------The parties in a suit filed by five retirees of Constellium RolledProducts-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union arecurrently engaged in discovery, which will end in January 2014 anddispositive motions are due in February 2014, according to thecompany's Dec. 5, 2013, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission.

On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium RolledProducts-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed aclass action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree healthbenefits. Specifically, the complaint alleges that ConstelliumRolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retireeswith health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, andthat Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC improperly capped,through changes that went into effect in January 2013, the amountit would pay annually toward those benefits. In 2013, the capswill result in additional costs of $5 per month for approximately1,800 retiree health plan participants. The parties are currentlyengaged in discovery, which will end in January 2014 anddispositive motions are due in February 2014. The company believesthat these claims are unfounded, and that Constellium RolledProducts-Ravenswood LLC had a legal and contractual right to makethe applicable modifications.

CUBIC CORP: Transit Customers Allege Violation of Fraud Act-----------------------------------------------------------Cubic Corporation faces a suit filed by transit customers allegingbreach of contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, unjustenrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act, according tothe company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2013.

In October 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against thecompany and one of the company's transit customers alleging breachof contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, unjustenrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act. ThePlaintiff claims he was wrongly charged (i) multiple times, at twodollars each time, for calling the call center that the companyoperates for patrons of the company's transit customer, and (ii) atransfer and a second fare when he paid for a fare plus atransfer. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified asa class action for all patrons charged in such a manner. Thecompany is undertaking the defense of the transit customerpursuant to the company's contractual obligations to thatcustomer.

CUBIC CORP: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Fare Collection System--------------------------------------------------------------Cubic Corporation faces suit over its operation of the transitcustomer's fare collection system, according to the company's Dec.5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

In December 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against thecompany and one of the company's transit customers alleging breachof contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud andDeceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment inrelation to the company's operation of its transit customer's farecollection system. The plaintiff claims to have not been creditedthe cost of her transit card even after registration of the card,as is required under the terms of the cardholder agreement. Theplaintiff also claims to have attempted to load value onto hertransit card and although her bank account was debited when doingso, she claims the value has never been added on her transitaccount. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as aclass action for all transit patrons who have experienced the samealleged problems with the fare system. The company is expectingto undertake the defense of the transit customer pursuant to thecompany's contractual obligations to that customer. The companyis investigating this matter and will vigorously defend thislawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, the companycannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimateof possible loss.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Ala. Labor Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Dollar General Corporation is awaiting approval of a preliminaryagreement to settle for up to $8.5 million a suit alleging itimproperly classified store managers as exempt executiveemployees, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she andother current and former Dollar General store managers wereimproperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FairLabor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 15,2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked thecourt to certify a nationwide class of current and former storemanagers. The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23,2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. OnDecember 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current orformer Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whomhave been dismissed for various reasons, including failure tocooperate in discovery.

On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class. Theplaintiff's response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opiniongranting the Company's decertification motion. On December 19,2012, the court entered an Order decertifying the matter andstating that a separate Order would be entered regarding the opt-in plaintiffs' rights and Cynthia Richter's individual claims. Todate, the court has not entered such an Order.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informallystayed the action pending the results of the mediation.Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013. OnAugust 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement,which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolvethe matter for up to $8.5 million. The Company has deemed thesettlement probable and recorded such amount as the estimatedexpense in the second quarter of 2013.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have beenproperly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and thatthe Richter action is not appropriate for collective actiontreatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiffstore manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Pursued in Suit Over Background Check----------------------------------------------------------------The parties in the suit Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (CivilAction No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) have continued informally to discussa potential settlement, according to Dollar General Corporation'sDec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (CivilAction No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiffs, one ofwhose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege thatcertain of the Company's background check procedures violate theFair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Plaintiff Marcum also allegesdefamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filedfirst and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek torepresent a putative class of applicants in connection with theirFCRA claims. The Company filed its response to the originalcomplaint in June 2012 and moved to dismiss certain allegationscontained in the first amended complaint in November 2012. Thatmotion remains pending. The plaintiffs' certification motion wasdue to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffsasked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties'ongoing settlement discussions. On November 12, 2013, the courtentered an order lifting the stay. The court has not issued a newscheduling order or otherwise imposed any new deadlines on theparties.

The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on threeoccasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and againin March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. Althoughthese formal discussions did not result in a resolution of thematter, the parties have continued informally to discuss potentialsettlement. The Company's Employment Practices LiabilityInsurance ("EPLI") carrier has been placed on notice of thismatter and participated in both the formal and informal settlementdiscussions. The EPLI Policy covering this matter has a $2million self-insured retention.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Faces Suit by EEOC for "Black Applicants"---------------------------------------------------------------The suit entitled Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLCd/b/a Dollar General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) continues in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois, according to Dollar General's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the UnitedStates Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or"Commission") notified the Company of a cause finding related tothe Company's criminal background check policy. The cause findingalleges that Dollar General's criminal background check policy,which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminalconvictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact onAfrican-American candidates and employees in violation of TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII").

The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily requiredconciliation process, and despite the Company's good faith effortsto resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.

On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitledEqual Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a DollarGeneral (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission allegesthat the Company's criminal background check policy has adisparate impact on "Black Applicants" in violation of Title VIIand seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief onbehalf of a class of "Black Applicants." The Company filed itsAnswer to the Complaint on August 9, 2013. The court has notentered a scheduling order and there are no other pendingdeadlines at this time.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Appeal Remand of "Varela" Suit Pending-------------------------------------------------------------The Petition for Permission to Appeal an order remanding the casefiled on behalf of "key carriers" against Dollar GeneralCorporation to the Superior Court of the State of California ispending, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended Nov. 1, 2013.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. DolgenCalifornia and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) ("Varela")was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for theCounty of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he andother "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periodsin violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaidwages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgmentinterest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. TheVarela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California"key carriers" as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff alsoasserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceedunder California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company removed the action to the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its Answer to the Complaint on July1, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand theaction to state court. The Company's response to that motion wasfiled on August 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion andremanded the case. The Company filed a Petition for Permission toAppeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuiton September 23, 2013. The Petition for Permission to Appeal ispending.

A status conference was scheduled by the Superior Court forJanuary 24, 2014.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Appeal Remand of "Main" Suit Still Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------The Petition to remand the case filed on behalf of "key carriers"against Dollar General Corporation to the Superior Court of theState of California for the County of Sacramento is pending,according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.1, 2013.

Similarly, on June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee DingerMain v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No.34-2013-00146129) ("Main") was filed in the Superior Court of theState of California for the County of Sacramento. The Mainplaintiff alleges that she and other "key carriers" were notprovided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements andappropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wageand hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties andattorneys' fees and costs. The Main plaintiff seeks to representa putative class of California "key carriers" as to these claims.The Main plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair businesspractices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA.

The Company removed this action to the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:13-cv-01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its Answer to theComplaint on August 6, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiffmoved to remand the action to state court. The Company's responseto that motion was filed on September 19, 2013. On October 28,2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and remanded the case.The Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November7, 2013. The plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 15,2013. The Petition remains pending.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Response to Conditional Cert. Bid Due March-----------------------------------------------------------The plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in thelawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) was due to be filed on or before February 3, 2014, andDollar General Corporation's response is due to be filed on orbefore March 5, 2014, according to Dollar General's Dec. 5, 2013,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.

On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp,LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) ("Wass") was filed in the CircuitCourt of Polk County, Missouri. The Wass plaintiff seeks toproceed collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarlysituated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were notproperly paid for certain breaks in violation of the FLSA. TheWass plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), injunctiveand declaratory relief, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgmentinterest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Missouri (CaseNo. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM). The Company filed its Answer on July 18,2013.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Trial in "Buttry" Labor Suit Set for Feb. 17------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Middle District ofTennessee has set the matter Rachel Buttry and Jennifer Peters v.Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) for trial onFebruary 17, 2015, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.

On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and JenniferPeters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) ("Buttry")was filed in the United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Tennessee. The Buttry plaintiffs seek to proceed on anationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewideclass under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store employeeswho allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks. TheButtry plaintiffs seek back wages (including overtime), injunctiveand declaratory relief, liquidated damages, compensatory andeconomic damages, "consequential" and "incidental" damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees andcosts.

The Company filed its Answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiffs'motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims is dueto be filed on or before December 20, 2013. The Company'sresponse to that motion is due to be filed on or before March 3,2014. The plaintiffs' motion for certification of their statewideclaims is due to be filed on or before September 22, 2014. Thecourt has set this matter for trial on February 17, 2015.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Kocmich" Labor Suit in Fla. District Court-----------------------------------------------------------------Dollar General Corporation is facing a labor lawsuit originallyfiled by Lisa Kocmich v. DolgenCorp, LLC (Case No. 2013CA005841AX)in the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida but removed to theUnited States District Court for the Middle District of Florida(Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-RAL-MAP), according to Dollar General'sDec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.

On September 16, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Lisa Kocmich v.DolgenCorp, LLC (Case No. 2013CA005841AX) ("Kocmich") was filed inthe Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida. The Kocmichplaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis underthe FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt storeemployees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked(including overtime) as required by the FLSA. The Kocmichplaintiff seeks back wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' feesand costs.

The Company removed this matter to the United States DistrictCourt for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-RAL-MAP) on October 21, 2013. The Company filed its Answer onNovember 4, 2013.

On Dec. 30, Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley initiated theirclass action against Facebook, alleging violations of federal andstate law in connection with the purported scanning of URLs inprivate messages between Facebook users.

On Jan. 21, David Shadpour filed a separate class action in theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California inOakland, alleging similar facts and asserting the same state lawas the Campbell complaint, according to the motion.

Both complaints assert legal violations based on the same allegedconduct: the alleged scanning of URLs in private messages betweenFacebook users for the purpose of delivering targeted advertisingand building user profiles.

Mr. Shadpour is seeking an order determining that the action bemaintained as a class action; judgment against Facebook for hisand the class members' asserted causes; and appropriatedeclaratory relief against Facebook; an award of statutory damagesfor each violation. He is being represented by Lionel Z. Glancyof Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; and Jeremy A. Lieberman, LesleyF. Portnoy and Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California casenumbers: 4:13-cv-05996, 5:14-cv-00307

FAMILY DOLLAR: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Overtime Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------David McAfee and Dan Packel, writing for Law360, report that aPennsylvania federal judge on Jan. 30 tossed a putative classaction brought against Family Dollar Stores Inc. by a former storemanager who said the company failed to pay him for overtime hours,holding that the plaintiff was exempt because of his managementresponsibilities.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel granted summary judgmentin favor of Family Dollar and against named plaintiffAlbert Itterly, who brought the suit in 2008 under thePennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The judge sided with FamilyDollar, which had argued that Mr. Itterly was exempt from theovertime provisions of the PMWA because of his executiveresponsibilities.

On Jan. 31, attorneys for Mr. Itterly filed a notice of appeal tothe Third Circuit, seeking to reverse the summary judgment.

The judge's Jan. 30 order is a win for Family Dollar in the long-running dispute in which Mr. Itterly sought to represent otherstore managers who weren't paid overtime. Judge Stengel acceptedthe company's arguments that Mr. Itterly was primarily a managerand that he regularly directed the work of two or more employees.

Mr. Itterly filed suit in March 2008, alleging that Family Dollarand its subsidiary Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania Inc. brokethe law when they didn't compensate him for overtime hours workedbetween July 21, 2007, and Nov. 24, 2007. Mr. Itterly, who workedan average of 63 hours per week and was paid a $930 weekly salary,said he was misclassified as an exempt employee under the PMWA,and therefore didn't receive proper overtime payment.

But, according to Judge Stengel, there are 21 similar casesagainst Family Dollar in the Western District of North Carolina,each of which were each decided on summary judgment favoring thecompany. In each case, the store manager plaintiffs made verysimilar allegations under similar circumstances, according to thejudge.

The cash relief will go to consumers who own or previously ownedthe toilets equipped with the so-called Flushmate System, whichcauses some porcelain toilets to crack or burst explosively,allegedly causing property damage and injuries to the classmembers. Flushmate has an ongoing recall for its products andprovides free repair kits to consumers, but this is the first cashsettlement.

The $18 million common fund may increase if more money is neededto cover damage and personal injuries. The proposed claims periodwill last for a minimum of two years, according to courtdocuments. The settlement was reached after four days ofmediation before a retired judge, according to court documents.

In January 2013, a California federal judge stripped multipleclaims from a class action accusing Flushmate of misleadingconsumers about defects in its pressurized flushing mechanismsdespite knowing that the flaws could cause toilets to explode.

United Desert Charities sued Flushmate, its parent company, SloanValve Co., and toilet manufacturer American Standard in August2012, claiming they failed to properly design and test the Series503 Flushmate III Pressure-Assist Flushing System and that thedefendants marketed the toilet as "trouble-free" while failing todisclose to consumers the potential for leaks, ruptures andpossible toilet explosion.

United Desert Charities' suit followed on the heels of anationwide recall of 2.3 million Flushmate mechanisms, announcedby the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2012. Thecommission noted that it had received 304 reports of productmalfunctions, including 14 reported "impact or laceration"injuries.

The defective products, made from two pieces of injection-moldedplastic, were manufactured between October 1997 and February 2008,according to the CPSC.

Although the company issued a repair kit following the recall,United Desert Charities says the kit fails to repair the defectand cannot even be installed in many toilets. The system must berepaired by a professional plumber, but Flushmate has refused topay the associated labor cost, according to the complaint.

United Desert Charities is represented by Birka-White Law Offices.

Flushmate is represented by SNR Denton.

The case is United Desert Charities v. Flushmate, case number2:12-cv-06878, in the U.S. District Court for the Central Districtof California.

FRED & FRIENDS: Recalls Infant Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withFred & Friends, of Cumberland, R.I., a division of LifetimeBrands, Inc., of Garden City, N.Y., announced a voluntary recallof about 183,000 in the United States and 17,000 in Canada Fred &Friends Chill Baby Artiste, Volume and Panic pacifiers. Consumersshould stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It isillegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumerproduct.

The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards. The beard onthe Artiste and the knob on the Volume pacifiers can detach,posing a choking hazard to young children. In addition, theventilation holes on the Volume and Panic pacifier guards are toosmall.

Fred & Friends has received one report of the knob on the Volumepacifier detaching. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves three styles of Fred & Friends Chill Babypacifiers, including the Artiste with a black plastic beard andmustache, Volume with a black volume control knob and Panic with ared panic button. The pacifier's name and UPC are printed on thepackaging. The Artiste's UPC is 728987021282, the Volume style'sUPC is 728987020599 and the Panic style's UPC is 728987020605.The pacifiers are plastic and silicone rubber and measure about 2inches wide and 11/2 inches tall.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold atdepartment stores, gift, drug, toy, baby product, grocery and homedecorating stores, and hospital, museum gift shops nationwide andvarious websites from April 2013 through December 2013 for about$10.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away fromyoung children and return them to Fred & Friends for a $12 refund.Fred & Friends is providing a postage paid envelope for consumersto return the recalled pacifiers.

GE APPLIANCES: Recalls Dehumidifier Due to Burn Hazards-------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withGE Appliances, of Louisville, Ky., announced a voluntary recall ofabout 350,000 in the United States and 2,700 in Canada (Greepreviously recalled 2.2 million dehumidifiers under 12 other brandnames in September 2013) dehumidifiers. Consumers should stopusing this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal toresell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The firm has received 16 reports of incidents with the recalledGE-brand dehumidifiers, including 11 reports of overheating withno property damage beyond the units, and 5 reports of fires beyondthe units which were associated with about $430,000 reported inproperty damage. This is in addition to more than 71 fires and$2,725,000 in property damage reported with other brands of Gree-manufactured dehumidifiers in the previous recall. No injurieshave been reported.

The recall involves 30, 40, 50, 65-pint dehumidifiers with the GEbrand name. Recalled model numbers are listed below. The brandname, model number, pint capacity and manufacture date are printedon the nameplate sticker on the back of the dehumidifier. Thedehumidifiers are light gray plastic and measure between 19 and 23inches tall, 13 and 15 inches wide, and 9 and 11 inches deep.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sam'sClub, Walmart and other stores nationwide and in Canada, andonline at Amazon.com and Ebay.com, from April 2008 throughDecember 2011 for between $180 and $270.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiersand contact Gree to receive a refund.

On certain model vehicles, the quick connectors that join the fuellines to the fuel tank may not have been properly secured. As aresult, the fuel line might loosen or disconnect, resulting in afuel leak. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source,could result in a fire causing property damage and/or personalinjury.

Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, secure the fuel line quickconnectors.

Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet Trax model

IKEA N.A.: Expands Recall of Jr. Beds That Pose Laceration Hazard-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withIKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced avoluntary recall of about 3,500 (22,000 units were previouslyrecalled for repair in August 2013) KRITTER and SNIGLAR JuniorBeds. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwiseinstructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell arecalled consumer product.

The metal rod connecting the guard rail to the bed frame can breakin use, posing a laceration hazard.

IKEA has received one additional report from the UK of a metal rodon a SNIGLAR bed breaking. A child received a small scratch tothe arm from the broken metal rod.

Recalled IKEA junior beds include the KRITTER and SNIGLAR modelswith a guard rail on one side. The pine wood KRITTER beds haveanimal cut-outs, such as a dog and cat on the headboard. A labelon the headboard or underside of the KRITTER bed has a date stampof 1114 to 1322 representing the year and week of production(YYWW), a 600.904.70 model number, and 19740 supplier number. TheSNIGLAR natural beech wood beds have a white painted fiberboardinsert on the headboard and footboard of the bed. A label on theheadboard or underside of the SNIGLAR bed has a date stamp of 1114to 1318 (YYWW), a 500.871.66 model number, and 18157 suppliernumber. This recall expands the date stamp for SNIGLAR beds to1049 to 1318. The beds measure about 65 inches long by 30 incheswide with a 22 to 26 inch high headboard.

The recalled products were manufactured in Poland, BosniaHerzegovina and Romania and sold exclusively at IKEA storesnationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from July 2005 throughMay 2013 for between $60 and $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled KRITTER andSNIGLAR junior beds and contact IKEA to receive a free repair kit.

K12 INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action in Va.----------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Jan. 31 disclosedthat it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf ofthe Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against K12,Inc. and certain of its senior executives. The action is captionedOklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. K12, Inc., et al.,1:14-cv-00108-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va.), and asserts claims under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in K12common stock during the period from March 11, 2013 throughOctober 9, 2013, inclusive. A copy of the Complaint can be foundon the website for counsel for the Plaintiff athttp://www.blbglaw.com

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materially misleadingstatements and omissions about K12 -- one of the largest privateeducation management organizations in the United States --regarding its student enrollment and revenue growth prospects forfiscal 2014, including compliance with state regulations governingenrollment. During the Class Period, the Company publicallyendorsed analysts' consensus estimates for full fiscal 2014financial guidance and emphasized that K12 was "on track to haveone of the best business development years" in the Company'shistory, which was supposed to "drive even higher growth forfiscal 2014" than in fiscal 2013. Further, the Complaint allegesthat Defendants falsely touted K12's "serious" attention toregulatory compliance. These and similar misrepresentations andomissions were made on the Company's quarterly earnings calls andat industry conferences.

On October 8, 2013, after the market closed, the Company alertedinvestors to the fact that, contrary to Defendants' publicrepresentations during the Class Period, K12's growth prospectswere limited and impeded by the Company's failure to timely investin promotional efforts to enroll new students in fiscal 2014. Asthe Company disclosed at the end of the Class Period, K12's "ownpromotional program started later than it should have, and drovemore applications later in the summer" when it was too late toconvert them into student enrollments. In addition, K12's growthprospects were hampered by the Company's failure to consider andadhere to legal compliance requirements affecting studentenrollment in fiscal 2014. As the Company further acknowledged,K12 failed to "appropriately" consider increased compliancerequirements that were applicable in certain states in the fiscal2014 enrollment season. On October 8, 2014, K12 filed a Form 8-Kwith the SEC, which included a press release revealing that K12'sactual fiscal 2014 revenue guidance was $905-$925 million -- notthe $986.8 million figure endorsed weeks earlier -- because 2014enrollments were below the levels that investors were told toexpect due to critical operational and performance deficiencies atK12's enrollment centers. In response to this disclosure, K12stock fell significantly, by more than 38%, falling from a closingprice of $28.59 on October 8, 2013 to a closing price of $17.60 onOctober 9, 2013.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you mustfile a motion with the Court no later than 60 days fromJanuary 31, 2014. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motionfor appointment as Lead Plaintiff is April 1, 2014. Any member ofthe proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiffthrough counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing andremain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questionsconcerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contactAvi Josefson of BLB&G at (212) 554-1493, or via e-mail atavi@blbglaw.com

LEIGHTON: Supreme Court Tosses MCI's Discovery Bid in Class Action------------------------------------------------------------------Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that Leightonhas secured a first-round victory in the class action broughtagainst it over its disclosure of an investigation into thecompany's dealings in Iraq by the Australian Federal Police.

The Victorian Supreme Court on Jan. 31 threw out an application byclass-action litigant Melbourne City Investments seeking unlimiteddiscovery into the company's affairs for a period extending backas much as two years. The court also upheld Leighton'sapplication to stop MCI from using a letter of legal advice to thecompany regarding the alleged knowledge of senior Leightonexecutives of bribery in Iraq.

Judge James Judd also ordered that MCI's statement of claim bestruck out, but granted leave for MCI to re-plead its case.

MCI, led by former Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott, who isalso acting as MCI's solicitor, brought the action againstLeighton in the wake of media reports about the allegations inOctober last year.

According to the reports, former acting chief executive DavidStewart and Leighton International boss David Savage wereallegedly aware in 2010 the company had allegedly paid kickbacksto government officials in Iraq.

Leighton disclosed to the market in 2012 it was being investigatedby the AFP.

Mr. Elliott sought the extended disclosure period alleging that itwas likely Leighton was aware of the investigation by the AFP muchearlier than was disclosed and was also aware of the allegedpayments as far back as 2010.

However, Justice Judd said allowing such a lengthy period ofdiscovery would be "fishing for a cause of action" and as such wasimpermissible.

Justice Judd also criticized elements of MCI's pleading, sayingMCI had not sought to ascertain whether the legal advice letterwas confidential before referencing in its pleading.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determinedthat drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caughton playground equipment, fences or other objects and result instrangulation, or in the case of vehicles, in the child beingdragged.

Neither Health Canada nor No Excess Inc. has received reports ofincidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

3,562 recalled sweatshirts were sold at L'Aubainerie stores.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold betweenJuly 2013 and January 2014.

Companies:

Distributor No Excess Montreal Quebec Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from thegarment to eliminate the hazard.

ONTARIO, CANADA: Two Thunder Bay Women Join Foster Care Suit------------------------------------------------------------CBC News reports that Two Thunder Bay women say they hope a classaction lawsuit will help children in foster care. Holly Papassayand Toni Grann are former crown wards and now claimants in thesuit. They allege the province failed to protect the rights ofchildren in its care. The lawsuit alleges that the provincefailed to protect their legal rights and that it should haveinformed them they could be entitled to compensation.

Ms. Grann said she's joining the class action suit so the lawyerscan draw attention to problems in the system. "The compensation .. . It's not our prime motive. But it is a way to get it out thereand it is the vehicle that they can use to help create change."

Lawyer Sandy Zaitzeff filed the suit in Thunder Bay, inpartnership with a law firm from Toronto.

Ms. Papassay and Ms. Grann say they suffered abuse when they werecrown wards. Ms. Papassay is named as the representativeplaintiff in the lawsuit.

Mr. Zaitzeff said both women were entitled to apply forcompensation, but the province never told them.

Ms. Grann said her early childhood was also a nightmare. Ms.Grann said she could have used the money for counselling, howeverboth women emphasized at a news conference on Jan. 30 that that'snot the main reason for the lawsuit.

The allegations haven't been proven in court.

Mr. Zaitzeff noted it will take a few years for the lawsuit to becertified.

On certain vehicles, the driver and passenger door latches mayfail and remain either permanently locked or unlocked. If thiswere to occur, the driver and/or passenger(s) may not be able toquickly exit the vehicle in an emergency, which could increase therisk of injury.

On certain vehicles, the seat belts may not comply with CanadaMotor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Due toa defect in manufacturing, the seat belt buckle may not release asrequired by the standard. This could hinder egress from thevehicle in an emergency, increasing the risk of injury.

The recall involves a type of rattle into which food can beintroduced in the silicone pouch, enabling the baby to tastevarious foods. The products can be identified by UPC737278069711.

Baby Cubes feeders are shaped in a rattle-type circular handle towhich the silicone pouch is attached. Only one model isavailable: Ref# SH-9711 in a green and yellow colour.

This toy does not meet the Canadian safety requirements for thesize and shape of rattles. The handle of these rattles can enterand become lodged in a child's throat which poses achoking/suffocation hazard to young children.

The latch can also break and detach from the rattle, which poses achoking hazard to young children. If the latching system opens,the food contained in the silicone pouch can also pose a chokingrisk.

An incident in which the latching system broke was reported toHealth Canada but no injury was reported.

Approximately 1272 units were sold in Canada, in Sobeys storesonly.

The recalled rattles were manufactured in China and sold fromFebruary 2013 to January 2014.

Companies:

Distributor Petite Creations Laval Quebec Canada

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contactPetite Creations to obtain more information on how to proceed at1-450-981-9842 or email Petite Creations.

PFP ENTERPRISES: Recalls Beef Products Over E. Coli Concerns------------------------------------------------------------Barry Shlachter, writing for Fort Worth Star-Telegram, reportsthat a Fort Worth meat company called PFP Enterprises is recallingabout 15,900 pounds of beef products because they may becontaminated with six strains of E. coli, the Department ofAgriculture's food safety service announced on Feb. 5.

No reports of illnesses have been received, it said.

The cuts, mainly fajita or skirt steak, were produced on Dec. 5and shipped to stores and restaurants in Arizona, Puerto Rico,Oklahoma and Texas, it said. One item was identified as 20-poundboxes of Movie Grill Sliced Tenderloin.

PFP's own testing showed that beef trim had tested "presumptivepositive" for toxin-producing E. coli strains, but the company"inadvertently did not carry the test out to confirmation, and notall affected product was held," it said

The company did not immediately return calls about the recall.Consumers with questions are advised to contact PFP at 817-546-3561.

The Food Safety Inspection Service advises consumers to cook beefat a temperature of 145 degrees with a three-minute rest time.The only way to confirm that beef is cooked to a temperature highenough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer thatmeasures internal temperature, it adds.

The Plaintiff alleges that Pure Encapsulations has made, andcontinues to make, affirmative misrepresentations and omissionsregarding its Betaine product. The Plaintiff contends that as aconsequence of the Company's unfair and deceptive practices, thePlaintiff and other consumers have purchased Betaine under thefalse impression that, by consuming the product they would beenjoying the healthful and nutritional benefits associated with aproduct which they reasonably believed, based upon the Defendant'srepresentations, was derived from sugar beets, rather than betainehydrochloride that was created synthetically.

Pure Encapsulations Inc., a/k/a Pure Encapsulations, wasincorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Massachusetts. PureEncapsulations is a formulator, manufacturer and distributor of avariety of health supplements, including Betaine.

SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination-------------------------------------------------------------Rebecca Forand, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that aclass-action lawsuit has been filed by 12 borough residentsagainst Solvay Specialty Polymers in regards to Paulsboro's publicwater supply being contaminated with chemicals that were used inthe company's plastics-making enterprise.

Tests of Paulsboro's main water supply -- well No. 7 -- has foundlevels of perfluorochemicals (PFCs), such as perfluorononanoicacid (PFNA) up to 150 parts per trillion, or .15 parts perbillion.

PFCs and PFNA are bioaccumulating chemicals that were used bySolvay -- located in neighboring West Deptford -- from the 1980sthrough 2010. Effects of the chemicals are still being studied,but according to the Environmental Protection Agency, they can betoxic to laboratory animals and wildlife.

"The named Plaintiff(s) fear harm to themselves, their families,property and any reasonable member of the potential class memberslikewise fear harm," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are claiming negligence, private nuisance, publicnuisance, strict liability, past and continuing trespass and pastand continuing battery. They are asking for medical monitoring,damages up to $5 million and the provision of clean water, as wellas punitive and compensatory damages.

"Solvay's negligent acts and omissions proximately caused andcontinue to proximately cause damage to the plaintiff(s) and otherclass members in the form of bodily injury," the lawsuit reads.

It also asks for individual purification systems that clean allwater being consumed or used in bathing and cleaning.

Recently, Paulsboro's governing body and the Department ofEnvironmental Protection have warned for "extreme caution" to beused when drinking the borough's public water. Parents of themost sensitive residents, those younger than a year old, should beusing bottled water to prepare formula or feeding their infantsliquid formula, according to the DEP.

As of Jan. 31, Solvay has begun offering cases of bottled water toPaulsboro residents who are pregnant or nursing, or if there is achild younger than one in the home. One case per week isavailable for qualifying residents and can be picked up at WeissTrue Value hardware store on Broad Street.

SOUTHEAST CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime in Texas------------------------------------------------------------------Melody Dareing, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports thatLori Stephenson filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 13 in theSherman Division of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District ofTexas, against Southeast Credit Systems LP, Trigon Investors LLC,Jeff Hurt and Joe Longbotham, alleging violations of the FairLabor Standards Act. She is filing suit of all others of similarsituations, the complaint states.

The lawsuit states the company is a national provider of nationalreceivable management services and the individuals are companyowners. Ms. Stephenson was employed as a debt collector fromOctober 2004 to June 5, 2013. She, and other class members, oftenworked in excess of 40 hours a week, but weren't paid by thedefendants one-and-a-half times pay, the complaint alleges.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid back wages and liquidateddamages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found due,court costs, attorney's fees and pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest.

United States District Court Eastern District of Texas Court CaseNo. 4:14-CV-0019-RAS-DDB.

STERIS: Amsco 3085 Hospital Bed May Bring Serious Injuries----------------------------------------------------------Amy O. Callaghan at Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, McCartney &Giuffra LLP reports that the Amsco 3085 hospital bed, designed forsurgical use, has proven to be drastically defective withcontinual events of the bed collapsing involuntarily duringsurgery. A defective hospital bed in any case is dangerous, but acollapsing bed during surgery could bring about serious injuries,if not fatalities.

Steris, the manufacturer of this defective surgical table, claimsit to be "one of the most reliable and popular surgical tables."However, in hospitals across the US, there have been numerousinstances where the table power and/or handheld positioningcontrols have failed or the table itself has collapsed.

An FDA report suggests the malfunctions of the table are likelycaused by the intrusion of liquids into the handheld positioncontrol which is not fluid-proof or watertight. Whether or notthis has been the cause of malfunction in each case, the widelyused surgical bed is, undoubtedly, not up to satisfactorystandards.

STEWART'S SHOPS: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in New York-----------------------------------------------------------Holly Gregory, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Stewart's Shops Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-00033-TJM-ATB(N.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) is brought for violations of state andfederal wage and hour laws.

Ms. Gregory alleges that the Company has systematically failed topay its workforce for all hours worked in violation of state andfederal law. She was employed at the Company's West Carthage, NewYork store as a non-exempt hourly employee.

Stewart's Shops Corp. is a New York domestic business corporationwith its principal place of business in Saratoga County, New York.

SYSTEM SENSOR: Recalls System Sensor Beam Smoke Detectors---------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withSystem Sensor, of St. Charles, Ill., announced a voluntary recallof about 610 system sensor reflected beam smoke detectors.Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwiseinstructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell arecalled consumer product.

When used with certain power supplies, the reflected beam smokedetectors can fail to send a signal to the fire alarm controlpanel that sounds the alarm and fail to alert occupants of a fire.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves System Sensor's reflected beam smoke detectorswith model number BEAM1224S and date codes 2111 through 3053. TheYMMW format date codes stand for (2111) 2012-November-1st week ofNov. through (3053) 2013-May-3rd week of May. The detectors areivory and black and measure 10 inches high by 71/2 inches wide.The model number and date code are printed on a label on the backof the detector's cover and on the product's packaging. Thereflected beam smoke detectors were used primarily in commercialbuildings as part of the fire alarm system. Detectors used withacceptable power supplies, as listed on the company website, donot need to be replaced.

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and soldat Alarm system, security equipment and electrical equipmentcontractors and dealers for use in commercial building fire alarmsystems from November 2012 through May 2013 for about $800.

Owners with the affected smoke detectors powered by a power supplythat is not on the company's acceptable list available online,should contact System Sensor to receive free replacement smokedetectors. System Sensor and its distributors are contactingpurchasers directly.

On December 19, 2013, the Company made public its largest and mostwide-reaching security breach to date. Target revealed thathackers had succeeded in gaining access to 40 million credit cardrecords, debit card records, and other personal financialinformation for many of its customers.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation based inMinneapolis, of Minnesota. Target is a nationwide retailer ranked36th on the Fortune 500 list.

TELESIGHT LLC: Contacted Class in Violation of TCPA, Suit Says--------------------------------------------------------------Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. TeleSight, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-00200-R-CW (C.D.Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Defendants of negligently,knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellulartelephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

TeleSight, LLC is a "person" as defined by the Communications Act.According to the complaint, TeleSight used an "automatic telephonedialing system" to place its daily calls to the Plaintiff seekingto collect the debt he allegedly owed. The true names andcapacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to thePlaintiff.

Instead, Mr. Janczak contends, Trans Pecos pays its mud loggers aflat amount for each day they work -- regardless of whether theywere working overtime or not. The collective action seeks torecover the unpaid wages and other damages owed to these workers.

UNITED STATES: 1,000 Workers Join Class Action Over Gov't Shutdown------------------------------------------------------------------Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that more than1,000 "essential" federal employees who had to work during thegovernment shutdown have joined a lawsuit alleging the governmentowes them money for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Class action plaintiffs firm Mehri & Skalet amended its Oct. 24complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, adding 1,017workers and requesting that the court authorize notice of thelawsuit be sent to all 1.3 million federal employees who had towork when the government was closed. Partner Heidi Burakiewicz --hburakiewicz@findjustice.com -- is lead counsel in the case.

The shutdown began Oct. 1 after Congress failed to pass a budgetfor the new fiscal year. Federal employees deemed "essential" hadto continue working but weren't paid until after the shutdownended Oct. 16.

That violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the plaintiffs'lawyers say, because the law requires that employees receiveminimum wages and overtime pay on their regularly scheduledpaydays.

The first biweekly pay period affected by the government shutdownwas Sept. 22 to Oct. 5. While employees received a partialpaycheck on their regularly scheduled payday, it did not includemoney for work performed from Oct. 1 to Oct. 5. (All federalworkers were paid retroactively after the government re-opened.)

The plaintiffs in Martin et al. v. United States say they areentitled to "liquidated damages" because they showed up for workbut weren't paid on time. "This is not a windfall for theseemployees," according to Mehri & Skalet's website. "Liquidateddamages are intended to compensate employees for the losses theymay have suffered as a result of not receiving the proper wageswhen due."

The firm argues that liquidated damages will equal the minimumwages the government was required to pay essential employees butdid not on their regularly scheduled payday, and double the amountof the overtime that was unpaid on that date.

UNITED STATES: Larry Klayman Challenges Surveillance Efforts------------------------------------------------------------Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that Larry Klayman,the attorney and activist challenging the U.S. government'ssurveillance efforts in court, on Feb. 3 told a judge he was eagerto begin collecting information and evidence from nationalsecurity agencies while part of his case is on appeal.

Mr. Klayman won a ruling in December from U.S. District JudgeRichard Leon that the government's collection and storage ofAmericans' telephone data likely violated individual privacyrights under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Department of Justiceis appealing Leon's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit.

Mr. Klayman on Feb. 3 told Judge Leon that he wanted to begindiscovery as soon as possible on the pieces of his case not onappeal, including his challenge to the government's allegedcollection of Internet communications. "These matters need tomove forward," he said.

The Justice Department has asked Judge Leon to dismiss the claimsthat are not on appeal. Marcia Berman, an attorney in the FederalPrograms Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division,said today in court that the government feared the disclosure ofclassified information once discovery begins.

Judge Leon said his first step will be to consider whether he canhear the government's motion to dismiss while the appeal on theconstitutional issues is pending.

On Dec. 16, 2013, Judge Leon concluded the NSA's bulk collectionof telephone records "almost certainly" violated the individualprivacy rights of American citizens. He ordered an injunctionhalting the collection of records for Mr. Klayman and anotherplaintiff, but put that order on hold pending a likely appeal bythe Justice Department.

The government appealed soon after. Mr. Klayman also filed anappeal. Judge Leon found the court lacked jurisdiction toconsider Mr. Klayman's claim under the federal AdministrativeProcedure Act, which was separate from the constitutional claim.

Mr. Klayman's case has grown narrower in the weeks since Leon'sruling. On Jan. 10, the Justice Department asked Leon to dismissaspects of Mr. Klayman's lawsuit that didn't involveconstitutional issues, including claims under the AdministrativeProcedure Act and Stored Communications Act; claims for relieffrom programs that allegedly collect Internet metadata (thegovernment said it discontinued the program in 2011) and targetInternet communications; and common law tort claims.

Mr. Klayman replied on Jan. 30 that he was withdrawing hisAdministrative Procedure Act and Stored Communications Act claimsand would file an administrative federal tort claims case."However," he wrote, "the constitutional claims will continue tobe vigorously pursued." He said he'd continue to pursue claimschallenging the alleged collection of Internet-based data andcontent.

The recall involves plush toys in the shape of penguins, dolphinsand seals made of 100% polyester.

The penguin has a white front, grey back, yellow ring around itsneck and black and orange head. The dolphin has a white front andgrey back. The seal is all white. The eyes of the stuffedanimals are made of small black plastic beads. The products bearthe item number and Universal Product Code (UPC) on a detachablecardboard label, the words "imported by VPP" and permit numberQC-003253 on a label sewn into the bottom of the plush toy.

The recalled plush toys were manufactured in China and sold fromDec. 2012 to Jan. 2014.

Companies:

Importer Varietes Pierre Prud'homme Inc. St-Jerome Quebec Canada

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away fromchildren and return them to the place of purchase for a fullrefund.

VIRGINIA: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Suit Certified as Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed that on January 31,2014, a federal district court in Virginia certified as a classaction a lawsuit challenging that state's ban on marriage forsame-sex couples, extending the scope of those represented in thelawsuit to all same-sex couples in the state who cannot legallymarry or whose legal marriages performed elsewhere are notrecognized by the commonwealth.

The case was initially filed on behalf of two couples by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, LambdaLegal, and the law firm Jenner and Block.

"We want to be clear that we're fighting for families across thestate," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of theACLU of Virginia. "This marriage ban affects families in a numberof different ways by denying them the many protections that comewith marriage. It's important that our case address the many waysthat families are hurt by our discriminatory laws."

The lawsuit was originally filed on August 1, and argued that,through the marriage bans, Virginia sent a purposeful message thatlesbians, gay men, and their children are viewed as second-classcitizens who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect,protections, and support that heterosexuals and their families areable to enjoy through marriage.

"The stories of our clients are just a small representation of thethousands of stories across the country in states like Virginiathat deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry," saidJoshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexualand Transgender Project. "We're glad that this case will apply toall Virginians who wish to make a lifelong commitment to eachother, and hope that Virginia will follow the 17 other states thathave preceded it in granting marriage equality."

The couples named originally in the class action case are:Joanne Harris, 38, and Jessica Duff, 33, of Staunton, who havebeen together since 2006 and have a four-year-old son, Jabari.Christy Berghoff, 34, and Victoria Kidd, 35, who are fromWinchester and have been together almost ten years. They have aone year old daughter, Lydia. They married legally in Washington,DC, but their home state does not recognize their marriage.

"We are pleased that the court has certified this case as a classaction. With this certification, all the same-sex couples inVirginia seeking the freedom to marry and those who want Virginiato recognize their marriages have officially become part of thefight against the state's discriminatory constitutional andstatutory marriage bans," said Greg Nevins, counsel in LambdaLegal's Southern Regional Office based in Atlanta.

WEST MARINE: Recalls 4,600 Folding Bicycles Over Defective Frames-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withWest Marine Products Inc., of Watsonville, Calif., announced avoluntary recall of about 4,600 Folding Bicycles. Consumersshould stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It isillegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumerproduct.

The bicycle's frame can break during use, posing a fall hazard tothe rider.

West Marine has received three reports of the bicycle's framebreaking, resulting in bruises and scrapes to a rider.

The recall involves two models of folding bicycles, the JettyExpress 2 and the Port Runner 2, that are designed for use in andaround docks and marinas. The Jetty Express 2 has a blue andwhite frame and folds at a hinge in the middle. Jetty Express 2is printed on the bike's frame. The Port Runner 2 has a red frameand folds at a hinge in the middle. Port Runner 2 is printed onthe bike's frame.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at WestMarine stores nationwide, online at http://www.westmarine.comand in the West Marine catalog from March 2010 through July 2013 forbetween $300 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and8return them to West Marine for a free replacement folding bicycle.

Western Beef, Inc. and Western Beef Retail, Inc. own and operate acompany for profit in Palm Beach, Florida, and employ persons likePlaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to work on theirbehalf in providing labor for their practice. The IndividualDefendants managed, owned, direct and operated a retailsupermarket business.

WESTERN ELECTRICITY: Fails to Pay System Operators' OT, Suit Says-----------------------------------------------------------------Matthew Cartier, on behalf of himself and all similarly situatedpersons v. Western Electricity Coordinating Council, a Utahcorporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00079-WJM-MJW (D. Colo., January 9,2014) alleges that although the Plaintiff and other similarlysituated reliability coordinator system operators worked overtimehours for the Company, it failed to pay them all overtimecompensation due under state and federal law.

Western Electricity Coordinating Council is a Utah corporationheadquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. WECC operates under adelegation agreement with North American Electric ReliabilityCorporation, a not-for-profit entity, as the Regional Entityresponsible for coordinating and promoting bulk electric systemreliability in the Western Interconnection. WECC's serviceterritory extends from Canada to Mexico.

On certain travel trailers, some deadbolt locks could fail andlock the interior handle, preventing a person located inside thetravel trailer from being able to exit when the door is locked.This could increase the risk of injury.

Does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) test devices? No, theyrely on tests done by the manufacturers. However, the FDA nowreports women may not have been included equally in clinical postapproval studies of many medical devices. According to the FDA,it is essential to adequately include the participation of womenwhen analyzing these devices which are used to treat certaindiseases. In order to properly examine the outcomes and possibleharmful results, there need be a proportionate input of women inthese clinical trials as women may react differently than men.Failure to include women can create a gender bias within thesepost-approval studies.

Until January 2013, the inclusion of women may have beenoverlooked and the sex differences regarding the safety andeffectiveness of these devices not properly studied. Goingforward, women need to be ensured that their sex specificpredominance to particular diseases be measured equally to menwhen studying medical devices effectiveness.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.